Although the Cape Island investigations are considered "limited"
testing and data recovery, data sufficient to address several
issues presently under inquiry in coastal North Carolina archaeology
were recovered. The research issues for this investigation are
presented below.

Structure Patterns on the Central North Carolina Coast

One of the distinguishing traits of Algonquian occupation along
the North Carolina coast is the longhouse (Loftfield and Jones
1995). Longhouses can be seen in the John White drawings and De
Bry engravings. The archaeological evidence for structures on
the coast is limited by the sandy nature of the soils, the high
rainfall, and a long history of plowing, all of which have reduced
the preservation of soil stains and have disturbed features indicative
of buildings.

Several structures have been uncovered on the coast, however.
These have, for the most part, consisted of two design types.
The first is a small rectangular structure, which appears in the
White and De Bry renderings of Secotan and Pomeiooc. Archaeologically,
this structure form is seen at the Amity site (31HY43) in Hyde
County (Gardner 1990), Permuda Island (31ON196) in Onslow County
(Loftfield 1985), and the Broad Reach site (31CR218) in Carteret
County (Mathis 1993). They are 6 x 9 m at Amity, 4 x 8 m at Permuda
Island, and 4 x 6 m at Broad Reach. The small rectangular structures
are composed of individually set posts.

The second design form is the Algonquian longhouse. This style
is also seen in the drawings of Secotan and Pomeiooc. The longhouse
has been observed at the Amity site (31HY43) in Hyde County (Gardner
1990), the Broad Reach site (31CR218) in Carteret County (Mathis
1993), and the Uniflite site (31ON33) in Onslow County (Loftfield
1979). These structures measured 6.5 x 14 m at Amity, 6 x 15+
m at Broad Reach, and 5 x 13 m at Uniflite.

Mathis (1993) reports at least one round to oval structure
at the Broad Reach site. Mathis (personal communication 1997)
suspects it is a Middle Woodland structure. Pits immediately adjacent
to the structure have Middle Woodland dates, and Hanover is the
prevalent ceramic in that part of the site. Loftfield (personal
communication 1997) had some possible circular patterns at Permuda
Island, but additional work discerned no definite structures.

The data available from the central North Carolina coast regarding
structures leads to several questions: 1) Are the small rectangular
and true longhouses the only design associated with the Algonquians?
2) Are the round to oval structures observed at Broad Reach and
possibly Permuda Island associated with the Algonquians, or with
earlier groups? 3) Were longhouses used by other Late Woodland
groups on the coast, or are they exclusively an Algonquian characteristic?
4) Are there enough structure patterns remaining on the coast
to address community plan, and will such a plan be consistent
with those seen in the White drawings and De Bry engravings?

Burial Patterns on the Central North Carolina Coast

Another hallmark of the Carolina Algonquians was the ossuary
burials (Phelps 1983). Previous research along the coast has indicated
three ossuary burial patterns. Ossuaries associated with the Iroquoian
speakers on the inner Coastal Plain in the north generally contain
two to five individuals interred as secondary bundle burials (Phelps
1983), assumed to represent family units. The Iroquoian ossuaries
usually contain marginella beads as grave goods and are inside
villages.

In the north and central parts of the outer coastal plain,
the Algonquian ossuaries are associated with shell-tempered ceramics
and generally represent community burials. They contain many individuals,
a significant proportion of whom are represented by isolated skeletal
elements. McCall (1987) noted Felis phalanges in two Algonquian
ossuaries in the north region. Generally, however, no unequivocal
grave goods are present. Algonquian ossuaries have generally been
assumed to be a short distance from the villages.

In the southern part of the coast, ossuaries associated Siouan
peoples are placed in mounds or on high sand ridges. This practice
began in the Middle Woodland and apparently continued into the
Late Woodland. These mounds harbor secondary burials placed in
bundles. Cremations, or least charred skeletal elements, are often
present, and grave goods are sometimes present. These burials
appear to be far from village sites, but this contention needs
to be tested with intensive survey designed to locate village
sites.

As laid out above, the Broad Reach excavations have raised
some questions about Late Woodland burial patterns along the North
Carolina coast. Is the broad array of burial types at Broad Reach
representative of cultural exchange between Siouan and Algonquian
groups, as suggested by Loftfield (1990)? Or do they represent
alternating occupation of the central coast by both Siouan and
Algonquian groups?

The Chronological Position of Hamp's Landing Ceramics

Hargrove (1993) recovered limestone-tempered ceramics from
the Hamp's Landing site. His report represents the first recognition
of this ceramic type. Hargrove was unable to obtain a radiocarbon
date for this ware but suggested, based on the stratigraphic position
of the sherds, that it was a Middle Woodland occurrence.

Can Hamp's Landing ceramics be recovered from a datable context
to either confirm or refute Hargrove's Middle Woodland attribution?
How does the Hamp's Landing series compare technologically and
stylistically with other area series? Herbert and Mathis (1996)
suspect that the previously defined Oak Island series (South 1976)
may actually be the limestone-tempered Hamp's Landing ware. This
possibility plays into the next research issue.

Algonquian Expansion on the North Carolina Coast

The distribution of Late Woodland peoples along the North Carolina
coast has generally been interpreted from linguistic studies and
ethnohistoric accounts (e.g., Hariot 1991; Speck 1924; Mook 1944;
Paschal 1953; Lawson 1967). North of the central North Carolina
coast, populations spoke dialects of the Algonquian language family.
South of the central coast, the inhabitants used a Siouan language.
In the central coast, there are no surviving early observations
from which a language affiliation can be inferred. This raises
the question of exactly which group occupied the central coast
at the time of European contact. To further confuse the issue,
Lawson (1967) indicates that the Coree, living along Core Sound
in central North Carolina in the early eighteenth century, were
speaking an Iroquoian language. However, one must keep in mind
that much happened between the time of Hariot's visit in 1585
and Lawson's visit in 1700. For example, disease brought in by
Europeans had resulted in great movements of people and much cultural
disruption.

There are discrepancies between the ethnohistoric accounts
and the archaeological record. For example, the early European
visitors leave the impression that agriculture, large mammals,
and large fish provided the bulk of the diet for the prehistoric
inhabitants (Hariot 1991; Quinn 1985). But very few large fish
or mammal remains are recovered from midden or feature contexts.
Instead, the bulk of the diet appears to come from small fingerling
fish and shellfish. It is suggested that the focus of those early
European visitors was on public relations instead of ethnographic
accuracy.

The extent of Algonquian expansion to the south lies somewhere
along the central North Carolina coast. Exactly how far did the
Algonquians expand? How long did they occupy the southernmost
extent? Following European contact (or prior to that) did the
occupation of the area shift intermittently from Algonquian to
Siouan to Iroquoian?

Data from the physical remains of individuals interred in ossuaries
can lend some evidence to address the question. The Algonquians
are generally considered to be a large-statured population.

Did Hamp's Landing ceramics appear during the Middle Woodland
and continue through the Late Woodland? That is, if the previously
defined Oak Island ware (South 1976) is indeed Hamp's Landing,
does that suggest a Siouan trait which continued along the southern
coast right up to contact? Is the presence of Hamp's Landing ceramics
in the central part of the coast indicative of an established
Siouan presence there or just evidence of material exchange?

Middle Woodland Seasonality and Site Function

Loftfield (1987a) has suggested that by the Middle Woodland
period, a pattern of adaptation to the coastal area was evolving
based upon exploitation of estuarine resources, with sites becoming
less frequently located in inland areas. Does the round structure
uncovered at Broad Reach represent a Middle Woodland permanent
occupation? If so, does it indicate a complete and total reliance
on the estuarine environment earlier than presently suspected?
That is, are we seeing an abandonment of seasonal rounds in preference
for year-round occupations in the littoral zone before the Late
Woodland?

Middle Woodland Changes in Plant Use (Wild vs. Domestic)

Can changes in the frequency of wild vs. domesticated plants
be detected in Middle Woodland components? Can such data, combined
with structural data, argue for an earlier adaptation to the estuarine
environment than presently known? That is, does evidence of sedentary
life exist for the Middle Woodland?

FIELD METHODS

Site 31ON190 was tested by using a 120G road grader to remove
all but approximately 23 inches of the plow zone from areas along
the proposed road running through the center of island (Sailview
Drive) and the proposed road serving as the entrance to the development
(Cape Lane). To complete the stripping, a tractor with a 7-foot
box blade was used to remove the remaining plow zone. Six areas
measuring 65 x 10 m were stripped along the proposed Sailview
Drive. One area measuring approximately 65 x 10 m was stripped
along the proposed Cape Lane. These were designated Areas AG.

Additionally, six areas measuring approximately 15 x 3 m were
stripped perpendicular to the proposed Sailview Drive. These smaller
areas were aligned along proposed lot lines. They were designated
Trenches HM. All of these smaller trenches were backfilled at
the end of fieldwork.

The removal of the plow zone was monitored by at least one
person at all times. This person(s) also shovel-shaved the stripped
surface in order to better recognize features and possible post
holes. Any artifacts observed during the plow zone removal were
collected, bagged, and labeled with the appropriate Area or Trench
designation. All features and possible post holes were marked
with pin flags. Features were then numbered consecutively. Possible
post holes were not numbered unless they appeared to represent
a pattern indicative of a structure, but all post holes were mapped.
Numerous post holes or possible post holes were present in all
areas and trenches. Not all of the possible posts could be verified
as such. A conservative estimate of the true post holes uncovered
during the fieldwork is approximately 1,500.

Features were photographed in both black and white print and
color slide format and drawn to scale in plan view. Each feature
was then bisected, and one-half was removed and screened through
0.125 inch mesh hardware cloth. The resulting profile was then
photographed in both black and white print and color slide format
and drawn to scale. The other half of the feature was taken as
a soil sample to be processed by flotation.

All stripped areas, trenches, and features were plotted with
a Leica T1010 total station. The field map was updated and field-checked
daily.

LABORATORY METHODS

All artifacts were returned to Garrow & Associates' archaeological
laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia, for analysis and temporary curation.
The first step in analysis involved inventory control measures
such as updating bag lists, correlating level and feature forms
with the bag lists, and cross-checking artifact and feature provenience.
After these had been reviewed and verified, accession numbers
were assigned and listed in a master accession log.

All flotation soil samples were processed using a Dausman self-contained
flotation system. Ethnobotanical and zooarchaeological remains
were sorted from the flotation residues. Methods of the ethnobotanical
and zooarchaeological analyses are discussed separately below.

Artifact analysis forms detailing the provenience, bag number,
quantity, artifact raw material, and, in some cases, the total
weight of each artifact type, as well as artifact descriptions
and classifications, were completed during initial sorting and
typing of artifacts. All artifact data were entered into a specially
designed coded database using 4th Dimension and Microsoft Excel
software on Apple Macintosh computers.

The prehistoric artifact analysis focused on identifying assemblages
and technological attributes diagnostic of particular temporal
and cultural trends along the central North Carolina coast. The
artifacts were identified according to established regional types
or styles. Ceramics were typed according to paste, temper, and
surface decoration. Haag (1958), Loftfield (1975), South (1976),
Phelps (1983), and Herbert and Mathis (1996) were followed for
ceramic identification.

Detailed Ceramic Analysis

The term "sample vessel" is used in this analysis.
A sample vessel represents portions of an individual pot that
can be separated from other vessels or sherds based on decorative
techniques and modes, thickness, vessel form, and paste characteristics.
Since the cumulative assemblage of sample vessels cannot be a
true minimum vessel assemblage, the term "minimum vessel"
is not applied. The adjective "sample" is appropriate
because the sample vessels represent only a portion of all vessels
at the site, because the utilized sherd collection does not represent
100 percent of the site area and because a site assemblage will
represent only a sample (i.e., those that broke) of the vessels
used at the site.

Sample vessel analysis can yield significant data on site function
and use intensity, stylistic change through time, and diachronic
changes in technology. However, the limited scope of the present
data recovery resulted in a small number of sample vessels. The
pottery from the dated Features 4, 15, and 35 was examined. In
addition, sherds from Features 11 and 37 were analyzed. It was
opportune that a direct cross-mend was recognized between sherds
from Features 35 and 37, thereby providing indirect dating for
Feature 37.

All sherds were pulled during the primary analysis. The sherds
were labeled and then placed according to surface treatment. Cross-mending
was attempted based on surface treatment, decorative mode within
a surface treatment (e.g., width of cords), thickness, vessel
form, and paste characteristics. When identified, cross-mends
were glued together. Following the cross-mending, sherds were
sorted into sample vessels based on the same attributes as the
cross-mends.

At the end of the sorting for sample vessels, not all of the
sherds were assigned to a given vessel. Many sherds lacked sufficient
decorative or stylistic discriminators to allow them to either
be placed with a given sample vessel or be used to define a sample
vessel of their own. However, the sample vessels represent over
90 percent (by weight) of all feature ceramics recovered.

The contributing sherds for each sample vessel were recorded,
as was the estimated percentage of the vessel represented. The
latter attribute is important in addressing issues of refuse patterning.
Each sample vessel had the following attributes recorded to provide
a detailed technological description of the wares:

The type, size, shape, and density of major aplastics
will reflect the nature of the clay utilized and the type of temper
added (if any). Major aplastic was defined as the prevalent (by
count) aplastic that was fine or larger on the Wentworth scale.
Aplastic type was described as geological stone type (e.g., quartz,
feldspar) or type of organic temper (e.g., fiber).

Aplastic size was defined by comparison of the sample vessel
to a clay bar with known aplastic content. Aplastic size was recorded
on the Wentworth scale as finemedium, coarse, very coarse, and
granule sizes. Sherds with no aplastics finemedium or larger were
labeled as No Apparent Temper.

Aplastic shape was described by geological grain shape labels
including angular, subangular, subrounded, rounded, platy, and
irregular. Shape was examined on a fresh break under 30X magnification.

Aplastic density was recorded as the number of major aplastics
in an 8 mm diameter view field. Density was examined in several
locations on a fresh break, and an average was estimated. In addition,
an estimate was made of the percentage of the body cross section
comprised of aplastics (rather than paste).

The type and size of minority aplastics were also recorded.
Minority aplastics may indicate natural aplastics specific to
a given clay source type. Alternatively, minority aplastics may
reflect the natural range, across Wentworth size class lines,
of natural or added aplastics. Typing and sizing followed the
methods described for majority aplastics.

The degree of carbon core retention is related to the
nature of the clay; the temperature, oxygen environment, and duration
of the firing; and the postproduction use of the vessel. In general,
the incomplete firing of vessels produced of native clays will
result in the retention of carbon-rich clay in part of the wall
cross section (Rice 1987). Shepard (1980) considers dark grays
and blacks typical of carbon-rich clays. Carbon core retention
was recorded as the percentage of the vessel wall cross section
comprised of dark gray or black colors.

Two other attributes, sherd core cross-section configuration
and dominant paste color, are related to degree of carbon
core retention. The type of core configuration (homogeneous, two-layer,
three-layer, etc.) and the paste colors will reflect the general
nature of the prehistoric firing. The presence and location of
a dark core relative to other paste colors can reflect the orientation
of the vessel during firing. Sherd core cross-section configuration
was recorded as the color layers present from interior to exterior.

As stated above, dark grays and blacks are indicative of carbon-rich
clays fired at too low a temperature, for too short a time, or
with insufficient air flow to allow carbon to be completely burned
off. Tans, buffs, and reds are indicative of oxygen-rich firings,
while light grays and browns are indicative of reduced oxygen
firings (Shepard 1980).

Rims were addressed through two related attributes, rim
form and rim production step. Rim form is simply the
basic description of the rim shape (e.g., round, square, round
with exterior lip). In this analysis, rim refers only to the extreme
edge around the vessel orifice; it does not include the vessel
neck or shoulder attributes. Other analysts refer to rim as lip.

Rim production step involves the process than went into making
a rim form. There are many different ways of producing a given
rim form. A square rim, for example, can be produced through smoothing,
scraping, cutting, and paddling. By examining both rim form and
production step, it is possible to distinguish technological traditions
within the seemingly limited range of rims in southeastern prehistory.

Coil breaks, sooting, and interior abrasions
were recorded as present, possibly present, or absent. Coil breaks
reflect breakage along weaknesses in the vessel wall that follow
coil junctures (Rice 1987). Not all coiled vessels exhibit coil
breaks, and the frequency of coil breaks is relevant to addressing
the relative use strength of vessels. Coil breaks are recognizable
as latitudinal breaks with either concave or convex, regular cross
sections.

Sooting is generally the direct result of pot use over an open
fire (Skibo 1992). Sooting can occur in postdepositional context
(e.g., a sherd used as a cooking pot support during a later occupation),
so this attribute has its best interpretive value when large vessel
sections are present. Soot is a surface deposit of dense carbonaceous
material.

Interior abrasions represent direct evidence of mechanical
use impact to a vessel (Hally 1983; Skibo 1992). Interior abrasions
have been linked to vessels commonly used for mixing, food preparation,
parching, and boiling and stirring. Interior abrasions are not
expected on vessels used for bulk storage of liquids or dry foodstuffs.
Interior abrasions are recognized as patterned damage to the interior
surface of a vessel.

Exterior and interior surface treatments were also recorded.
Exterior surface treatments are clearly of interest in typology
and chronology. The examination of interior surface treatments
can be useful in addressing potential technological continuity
between types or series. Interior surface treatment was recorded
as poorly smoothed, smoothed, semiburnished, burnished, and scraped.

As feasible, the form of the vessel shoulder and/or base was
recorded. This attribute was directly linked to the inferred vessel
form. Because vessel morphology has been shown to reflect the
primary intended functions of the vessel, the recognition of vessel
forms can provide important data for site interpretations (Braun
1980; Hendrickson and McDonald 1983; Smith 1985). The only two
vessel forms recognized were shallow bowls and deep bowls. Vessel
profiles were drawn as feasible.

Rim diameter was measured on a 1-cm-increment chart when a
sufficient rim section was available to assure reliability of
the derived measurement. Studies have indicated that vessel size
is often linked to site function and size of the social units
(Shapiro 1983, 1984; Smith 1985). Rim diameter data complement
vessel form information.

Shell Tool Analysis

Because lithic resources are sparse on the North Carolina coast,
very few stone tools are recovered from coastal sites. The majority
of tools used by prehistoric inhabitants were probably fashioned
from perishable materials such as wood or bone. Tools made from
whelk shells are often found on coastal sites consisting of both
complete and fragmented specimens. Whelks from the Cape Island
site were examined as whole unmodified shells, modified shells,
and fragments of columnella.

Tool types were defined based on the location and extent of
modifications observed on particular shells. Probable function
of such tools was inferred based on the observations.

Ethnobotanical Analysis

Charred plant remains from the general site fill were placed
in acid-free bags and labeled with the appropriate provenience
information. Soil samples taken from features were individually
processed through the flotation system described above, which
carries away only those soil particles which are less than 0.0625
inch in size. The light fraction floats to the top and is siphoned
off. The heavy fraction is retained. Both fractions were allowed
to air-dry and were then examined for charred botanical remains.
All charred botanical remains from the flotation system were placed
in acid-free bags and appropriately labeled.

The plant remains were identified using the botanical collection
held at Garrow & Associates' laboratory. Each specimen was
identified to the species level when possible. Of the 795 charred
botanical remains recovered, 270 (33.9 percent) were highly fragmented
seeds that could not be identified. In 10.0 percent of the cases
(80 seeds), severe charring had obliterated characteristic physical
traits, such as surface textures and attachment areas, precluding
the identification of these specimens. Of the 795 plant remains
from 31ON190, a total of 445 (55.9 percent) were identified.

Zooarchaeological Analysis

Zooarchaeological specimens from the general site fill were
collected in acid-free bags and labeled. Soil samples taken from
features were individually processed through a flotation system
that carries away only those soil particles less than 0.0625 inch
in size. The light fraction floats to the top and is siphoned
off, while the heavy fraction is retained. Both fractions were
allowed to air-dry and examined for zooarchaeological specimens,
which were placed in acid-free bags and appropriately labeled.

Animal remains were identified using the zooarchaeological
reference collection held by Garrow & Associates. A subsample
of fish bones was identified by Mr. Daniel C. Weinand at the Natural
History and Zooarchaeological Museum, University of Georgia, Athens,
under the supervision of Dr. E. J. Reitz.

In addition to species identification, other factors such as
element, side, degree of burning, animal gnaw marks, butchering
marks, and state of bone preservation were also recorded for each
specimen in accordance with generally accepted archaeological
procedures (Olsen 1968; White 1953).